Posts Tagged ‘misologue’

This just might be my last post to this blog. As an experiment Bread & Sanity [an earlier blog] has come to an end, or become redundant, recently I’ve been focusing on writing and reading on education, so I’ve been posting, when I do here (dead link). Recently I’ve also been reading a lot more than I’m writing, which doesn’t give any clue to the amount of time I’ve spent reading, because I’ve written nothing.

There is some writing on education on this blog, which will be moved, but much of the other writing will be moved as well. With labels finding my notes won’t be a problem, and I’m also not worried about any kind of focus. Education is always just one system/concept in a very large world system/concept. With focus you lose perspective.

Yes, notes. I’m also using a blog as a collection of notes, or a collector of notes, obviously both private and public. Who am I writing to right now, you as much as myself, and more myself, as existing and hoping to make some use of these notes in the future.

Why theory? In a note on Dewey I wrote a little about perfect theory, or perfecting theory maybe learning theory, or evolving theory, but perfect is what I’m after. Does this idea fly in the academy? Perfect has been critiqued and found suspect. Now anyone who considered the project is considered ignorant of accepted wisdom. So again, Why Theory? Always non-perfectable, always partially inapplicable, so why? I’m not suggesting that there is a perfect theory, but that I should work toward one. The concept of perfect theory is playful, light-hearted. Saul Alinsky begins his Rules for Radicals with an over the shoulder nod to the very first radical, Lucifer. Power rejects all challengers, and with this understanding the meaning of rejection becomes a problem. If a theory has been rejected it can be a powerful theory for change as easily as the ravings of a lunatic. The problem is that if your ideas aren’t rejected by power, they’re useless, and if they are there’s a very good chance they’re still useless.

All this is an attempted dialogue. There’s a possibility of dialogue. There is no dialogue. There original article is here. The comments are here. I post this here because I like the connections. The Michael Moore review is on some 666 site, and Focus on the Family says a very similar thing, plus the original article talks of the same phenomenon as Hold On To Your Kids. I like connections.

His is a rather sentimental and weak argument. Teenagers have been teenagers for decades; he does not adduce what, if anything, is different about today’s teenagerdom from yesterday’s teenagerdom.
Dave | Homepage

I’ll push your first claim further, and note that teenagers have been teenagers for centuries, at least.

I think the post was fairly clear in it’s contention that what’s different about today’s teenagers is that they spend much more time with one another, and only one another, and they are taught by less competent individuals.

There are plenty of ways to attack both arguments, but it seems false on the surface to assert that I did not adduce a difference between present and past.
Tony | Homepage | 02.26.07 – 10:25 am |

What derisive, prejudicial and ignorant commentary. Many teens are creative, insightful and have excellent work ethic. Of course, some reflect poorly on each other, but many help each other improve in the hours the spend together.

What you say is sort of like saying all bloggers offer only ridiculous, self-aggrandizing commentary, just because they spend a lot of time reading each other’s blogs.
Mark Barnes | Homepage | 03.04.07 – 9:31 am |

Or like saying that one commenter who has trouble spelling words correctly is proof that all commenters are poor spellers.

I think the qualifiers were clear enough: “a large portion of high-school seniors,” for example. Of course I wasn’t talking about all teenagers, or all teachers, for that matter. The fact that many teenagers are brilliant, and their teachers highly competent, doesn’t refute what I had to say.
Tony | Homepage | 03.05.07 – 12:19 pm |

This author/psychologist gives parents and teachers some advice for dealing with peer orientation. That teenagers prefer to keep company with themselves is having a “devastating impact in today’s society”, according to Neufeld, and parents actually spending time with their kids is his new and innovative solution.

I’m guessing the tone of your post was what the two previous commentors were really on about. I see the same phenomenon but well, there’s this: “But perhaps picking a fight with higher education, in the same post where I pick on high schoolers and their teachers and their parents and the rest of us who let news like this roll off our backs without changing our behavior one bit, is, well, just one fight too many.” It’s a mexican standoff, like that scene (50) in Reservoir Dogs, but you’re blaming the actors in our social drama. Doesn’t blaming the script writers ever cross your mind?

Society is changing, but so has the economy. Why are kids working as much as they do? Why are parents working as much as they do? Why are you “picking on” the little guy? I take for fact our responsibility to ourselves and our children. But by your own understanding (“If you study about ten times harder, and have an ounce of common sense, and work really long hours, then perhaps you can build yourself a plane, and then you can fly. Otherwise, get used to walking.”) citizens are being worked beyond socialization. Is it stupidity or the underclass that’s spreading?
Rodger Levesque| | 03.12.07 – 4:38 am |

My goal isn’t to pick on the little guy. It is to pick on the big, fat slob of a parent who spends too much time in front of the tube, and not enough time engaging his children in the real work of becoming responsible adults.
Tony | Homepage | 03.12.07 – 4:30 pm |

The real income more than doubled for everyone else as well. But fifty years ago a household would have had one bread winner. Today, that’s not the case. Two people are now working per household.

And sure not every household has two incomes, but not every teenager has no adult contact.

What do you call this? A cultural shift? Can it be called an economic shift? If one earner were to devote himself to the kids, would the household earning then be nearer to what it was fifty years ago? And is that doubled household income going straight to a materialistic lifestyle? I read in the paper often about the average household credit card debt. Was this a problem 50 years ago when households were bringing in half what they do now? How are these real dollars calculated? If the dollars take into account only necessities, is cable included? How about these gas prices? Computers? Cell phones? insurance? Are all these things taken into account?

I’m not going to try to tell you that the fat guy picture you paint doesn’t exist, I’m sure he’s washing down pork rinds with a miller lite watching deal or no deal right now, but the problem of family socialization time has to be more complex than that. You’d know better than I if you can call it an economic shift, but definitely a cultural shift has occurred.

It doesn’t matter which side of the polemical divide your argument falls.

“Dr. Steve Farrar presents a message on how the spiritual virus of affluenza (the pursuit of material success) is sweeping the country and destroying the family. Affluenza causes good people to make unwise choices by distorting their thinking, their judgment, and eventually causes them to sacrifice their children on the altar of success.

He gives three components to success in America. Attaining these three components equals status, and if you have status in America, then your perceived importance goes up. Steve provides tremendous perspective from the Scriptures (1 Timothy 6:6-11) and expresses that contentment is destroyed by comparison.

On Day Two, Steve talks about the God-ordained family and lists the two things that every family needs, presenting God’s ideal plan for the father to be the primary provider and for the mother to be the primary caregiver.

He traces the course of affluenza beginning with the Industrial Revolution, when men were first taken out of the home and into the factories for work, followed by the feminist revolution in the past 25-30 years which has taken women out of the home, and Steve asks who is taking care of the children.

Dr. Dobson closes by assuring listeners that he knows that materialism and greed are not the reason all mothers work, some are working out of need.”

“Moore first shows us how the mother from the impoverished town of Flynt, Michigan was left without work following the closing of the local GM plant as jobs were given to cheap labor out of country. We then travel with Moore before sunrise on a two hour bus ride to the wealthy suburban mall where the state’s privatized work-for-welfare program sent her (the program, incidentally, was run by defense industry giant Lockheed Martin, who also builds nuclear missiles in Littleton Colorado, site of Columbine High School). We get quick tours of the Dick Clark fifties-theme restaurant and the fudge factory where she performed her minimum wage jobs before bussing home after sunset. Despite the two jobs, the woman still did not have enough to pay her rent. Consequently, she was evicted from her house and taken in by her brother. Soon after, while she was bussing to work, her young child found her brother’s handgun, carried it to school and killed another student.”

I’m not proposing a solution. Tony, you’ve written provocatively on a very real issue. I think it’s more complicated than your presentation, and I’m still wondering, what’s really happening? When I asked if it was stupidity or the underclass that was spreading, I meant is our culture becoming oppressive? The problem has spread well into what was once called the middle class and on into academia. Is all this work, creating poverty of the mind? I think Camus had something to say about this. I guess if there’s a question in here anymore, it’s: Don’t you think you’ve simplified the problem (a problem you had the ability to recognize and examine) a little too much?
Rodger Levesque | | 03.12.07 – 11:40 pm |

I’ve pulled two quotes from the first chapter of Siddhartha. They deal with those ideas of “way” and “self”. Dealing with a novel chapter by chapter may not make the same kind of sense as dealing with chapters in textbooks, but I’ve read through this novel already, so chapter by chapter may not even be possible. As a whole, I’ve got nothing to say about the novel. These themes so obviously run through the book that I might just let these quotes hang here for now.

Nobody showed the way, nobody knew it — neither his father, nor the teachers and the wise men, nor the holy songs. (p.6)

One must find the source within one’s own Self, one must possess it. (p.7)

I’m also interested in writing about fatherhood as portrayed in the book. I could start writing about fatherhood as it appears in this chapter. But Siddhartha becomes a father later in the book and there’s a lot more material in the chapter that deals with that period .

When I say I’ve got nothing to say about the book as a whole, I mean I’m not interested in writing a polemic. Hesse is putting something forward. I’ll write about that. I’ve been thinking about the value of argument a little bit for the past few days. Of course I could do a little more thinking, but at this moment I’d say that any value in the idea of arguing, or the value of winning an argument is linked to some idealized concept of justice that has never existed in any social practice.

I’m about to start writing about why I am cynical, should I wait until we start reading Sloterdijk? I can bring in a quote from Siddhartha that’s more or less relevant.

Govinda knew that he would not become an ordinary Brahmin, a lazy sacrificial official, an avaricious orator, a wicked sly priest, or just a good stupid sheep amongst a large herd.

All these possibilities of what a man can become all take place under an ideal of good. In Siddhartha the possibilities are simply named, but critical thinkers will argue against these possibilities by invoking this ideal of good. Thinkers like Nietzsche (and his followers) who posit the ideals are false, also foresee major change as social consciousness becomes aware of these false gods. All this awareness and argument leads to nothing or the same, because of our hypocritical basis.

Does any character make more appearances in the Bible than the hypocrite?

"The very moment philosophers proclaim ownership of their ideas, they are allying themselves to the powers they are criticizing."

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality." — Che Guevara